Microsoft Buys Ad Firm for $6 Billion

bain writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft has agreed to buy the digital marketing firm Aquantive, in what will be its biggest ever acquisition. The software giant spent almost $6 billion acquiring the agency, in its first bid to tackle the online advertising market. 'The deal is expected to be completed in the first half of 2008, subject to regulation. Microsoft said the expensive price tag was worth it to access the complementary technology of Aquantive. The firm will continue to operate from Seattle as part of Microsoft's online operations, and will help the software giant broaden the scope of services its MSN consumer internet unit can offer. Microsoft is the latest technology firm to pounce on the shrinking independent online advertising sector.'"

Other potential buyouts?

[fishybell]

How 'bout microsoft buyout some of that thevinylgroove.com or fishybell.com. I hear that even though they're offline they're worth millions. Millions I say!

Microsofts newest aquisition

[Recovering Hater]

Will have its addresses as the newest addition to my hosts file.

And TV?

[khasim]

Soon:
MSNBC online running ads from Aquantive for Windows Vista.

Eventually:
MSNBC running ads from Aquantive for XBox720.

Re:

[Recovering Hater]

MSNBC - oh yeah... that was that channel that I immediately skip over when I flip channels. Not like there is ever anything worth watching on that channel.

Re:And TV?

[Tarlus]

Just edit your TV's hosts file.

Re:

[mickwd]

localhost 127.0.0.1
tedrogers 3.2.1.0

Re:

[vimh42]

Will have its addresses as the newest addition to my hosts file.

You know what's funny about that? If you're using a MS OS, they can ignore your hosts file.

Re:

[Rick17JJ]

I use Mike's Ad blocking hosts file, although I haven't checked to see if Aquantive is on the list of blocked URLs. I use it on both my Windows computer and my Linux computer. It can also be used with Mac OSX. Whenever Mike's website comes out with an updated version of his Ad Blocking Hosts file I update my computer's hosts file. However, it wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft eventually tries to create some kind of problems for users who dare to try to block any of Aquantive's URLs either through a hosts

Re:

[Achromatic1978]

OMG, ze conspiracy!

Yeesh.

"Microsoft's gonna do evil, you just know it, cause it's ... Microsoft!"

Here's a hint, add the following to your hosts file:

127.0.0.1 ads1.msn.com

Hey, look, the ads served on MSN.com by that server are blocked!

But let's not let little details like that get in the way.

Breaking news:

[zyl0x]

In an attempt to foil Microsoft's plans for internet advertising domination, Google has upped the bidding to eleventy billion dollars, a number which does not even exist. Yet.

Re:

[Wicko]

Simply amazing. On to Hilary Swank...

Re:

[networkBoy]

Actually the article mentioned the capability of MS buying Yahoo...
-nB

Re:

[j00r0m4nc3r]

eleventy billion dollars

Is that larger or smaller than a googolyplexy?

Re:

[owlnation]

eleventy billion dollars

Is that larger or smaller than a googolyplexy?

Larger, of course. Eleventy = one louder.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has upped the bidding to eleventy billion dollars, a number which does not even exist. Yet.

Your Google Overloards saysotherwise:

Results 1 - 10 of about 186,000 for eleventy. (0.16 seconds)

Re:Breaking news:

[Gatekeyper]

I find it amusing, according to MS and others, that Google "overpaid" for Double-Click...#1 in the market. Not to mention the cries from Redmond of monopoly. However now, MS dishes out nearly twice the amount for the #2 in the market. Oh the irony. Google schools MS again.

Re:

[MLopat]

Or you could just consider that market conditions change. Oh my god, you over paid for gas two years ago and now its way more expensive. Guess you were right at the time.

Re:

[thc69]

Your analogy is flawed. How about this:
Oh my god, you overpaid for a ten year supply of gas two years ago and now it's way more expensive. Guess you were right at the time.

Re:Breaking news:

[hackstraw]

I find it amusing, according to MS and others, that Google "overpaid" for Double-Click...#1 in the market. Not to mention the cries from Redmond of monopoly. However now, MS dishes out nearly twice the amount for the #2 in the market. Oh the irony. Google schools MS again.

That, and this is what I find interesting. Kmart bought Sears for $11 billion. Sears has been around for a number of years. They are known for their kenmore (albeit rebranded) and craftsman product lines. They have real inventory, real stores, and real employees. Chrysler was recently sold for 7.4 billion. Well, 80% of it, but I'm talking ballpark figures here.

Today, MS buys Aquantive. I've never heard of them before now. I would imagine this amounts to a database and some office space and maybe a website or something.

I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion.

To me, this seems overinflated. I guess that your ROI on "real" things like sears and chrysler dwarfs databases and websites.

I guess this makes sense when you think that we are in the information/service age and we have left the industrial age, but this still seems a bit strange.

Real things are hard to make and profit from.

[Mahjub Sa'aden]

See, here's the thing. Real Things are really hard to make. Research, development, testing, certification, more testing, marketing, shipping, storing, selling, and maybe even shipping one more time make for a lot of money invested to not a lot of return, considering all the effort that goes into them. Sure, you might say that Sears makes a lot of Real Things and has a lot of Real Assets and employs a lot of Real People, but at the end of the day, are its profits in line with the amount of money invested to

Re:

[roman_mir]

I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion. - Oh, CRAP! I need to buy his website. Quickly, what is the number for VISA, I need to check my credit, wonder if they'll be just as exciting about investing 3billion dollars?

Re:Breaking news:

[CodeBuster]

I saw a headline the other day where the kid who made facebook (just a website), refused to sell for $2billion.

Actually he refused to sell for $750 million to Viacom in January of 2006 and again in September, this time to Yahoo, for $900 million (although negotiations are presumably ongoing with the offer still on the table since neither side has announced publicly that they are pulling out of the deal). I don't know what the book value of the Facebook is, but if I were in his shoes then I probably would have sold to Viacom for $750 million provided that the offer was all or mostly cash AND that I could walk away at any time with my money if I didn't like the way that Viacom was running the business or if they were interfering...same for Yahoo. You can always take the money, shore up your financial position, and then found another company or simply retire to private life. These geeks are playing a very dangerous game by trying to squeeze that last few hundred million out what is already a pretty large pot of gold. Just imagine what happens when the deal falls through because you were stubborn and the market or technology changes and you are left with the burnt out shell of a dot.bomb company? Most people would probably have difficulty recovering from that type of a psychological blow...some probably never would. If you are ever in that enviable position then take the money and run if you don't like the way that things are going.

Of course, I am not in that position and it could be argued that given the amount of risk he took on to build the company to the point where he *could* sell it that he is either one of those people that thrives on insane risks and has a pair to match, he knows some *crucial* piece of information that we don't, or he is just plain stupid (unlikely). I tend to favor the risk taker hypothesis myself, that is probably why he controls an almost billion dollar corporation and I do not. On the other hand I would like to save enough money to die someplace warm when I am old and I don't fancy the idea of going broke a couple of times along the way on the outside chance that I might be in exactly the right place with exactly the right product at exactly the right time to make a killing, but that is just me I suppose.

Re:

[kestasjk]

The facebook owner doesn't read Slashdot Semel, quit trying your luck and fork up the extra hundred million.

Re:

[GTMoogle]

Or alternatively, the owner is happy where he is and has enough money to be comfortable, so he's just got no reason to sell other than to see what ridiculous numbers he can get them to say.

Re:

[slashqwerty]

he knows some *crucial* piece of information that we don't

It may be that he knows the true value of his company. Perhaps he has already stashed away enough money for the rest of his life so he isn't worried about the company going broke. Perhaps he is expecting his company to continue to grow in value. Maybe he just doesn't like Viacom. Perhaps he loves his job and the respect it garners; and perhaps that's worth more to him than $750 million.

Re:

[alnjmshntr]

More than likely he is already comfortably rich. I mean does it really matter if you have 10 million or 750 million? To most people, no.

Re:

[ccp]

These geeks are playing a very dangerous game by trying to squeeze that last few hundred million out what is already a pretty large pot of gold. Just imagine what happens when the deal falls through because you were stubborn

Shut up, you insensitive clod! (Jean-Louis Gassée)

Re:Breaking news:

[gutnor]

"Google schools MS again"

Yeah, Google is much more efficient than MS in detecting and buying evil companies.
After seeing what MS has done in the past, I wonder why people are so happy to see another giant outwitting MS in its own game.

Oh, I almost forgot, Google, unlike Microsoft will not use the evil tactics of DoubleClick and they fight underground for human rights in China.

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

aQuantive has an ad technology provider (Atlas) which is at least as large, and perhaps larger, than DoubleClick. It's hard to be sure, because there are no good metrics in this industry to measure by. In addition, aQuantive also owns one of the largest agencies on the Internet, Avenue A.

Hate to break this to you, but aQuantive is much bigger than DoubleClick. Microsoft may have overpaid, but not nearly as much as everybody's claiming.

Re:

[thc69]

Is eleventy billion larger than a googol [wikipedia.org]? Is it larger than a googolplex [wikipedia.org]?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Anti-climactically, MS kicks it up to eleventy billion+(neener,neener,neener), apparently saving the day for Redmond.
In a shock-and-awe move, Engadget publishes a bogus email that underlying technology, a phalanx of cavemen and geckos, is in visa trouble and will have to lay low in Zambiniland for at least six months.
The resulting price crash effectively wipes out the value of the acquisition, and Redmond is out close to nineteeny billion+(omfg).
And that about wraps up our sports coverage for this evenin

Compare all replies to replies from Google deal

[Rosyna]

I wonder if Microsoft is still going to complain about Google's purchase of Doubleclick....

In fact, all replies to this story should be immediately compared to the comments of Google's purchase. It'll be interesting to see the people that backed Microsoft's position that Google did something evil now commenting on this news.

And people say there's no Microsoft-cult.. Pftt.

Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal

[SpaceLifeForm]

I agree. This action by Microsoft is just proof that Microsoft screaming 'anti-trust' over the Google-DoubleClick deal was going nowhere.

Good move for Google, they paid half the price for a better known entity.

Re:

[click2005]

It wouldnt surprise me if Aquantive has some patents that MS needs to stop Google.

Re:

[Ucklak]

I've never heard of Aquantive until now.
I've heard of Doubleclick and they're blocked in my router.

I just wonder what patents that Aquantive has that aren't in use that could be used to compete with Doubleclick.

Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal

[Jason Earl]

If Microsoft wanted to use Aquantive's patents against Google the last thing that it would do is buy the company. Microsoft almost certainly infringes on some patents that Google owns, especially if you throw in Windows and the rest of Microsoft's software. The Holy Grail of patent litigation is to produce a patent that is being infringed by Windows as the potential payoff can be enormous. If Aquantive sues Google then the possible damages from a counter suit are much lower than the possible damages from a counter suit against Microsoft. If this was about patent litigation then Microsoft would announce a "partnership" (or maybe it wouldn't even do that) and Aquantive would sue Google.

Microsoft is not going to sue any organization that has software patents over patent infringement as Microsoft almost certainly has more to lose than any other player.

Re:

[eMbry00s]

When you're serving ads, I don't know if being well-known is a good thing.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's already evil. Them doing more evil is not news.

Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:Compare all replies to replies from Google deal

[Timesprout]

I wonder if Microsoft is still going to complain about Google's purchase of Doubleclick....

Well to be fair in this case MS did have a point. DoubleClick gives a lot of insider track knowledge to Google and they do have the existing infrastructure to leverage it to squeeze out competitors should they choose. For this reason I did think that Google wanted DoubleClick more than MS and were prepared to pay over the odds to acquire it despite the talk of MS just trying to drive the price up. It's interesting now that having baulked at the DoubleClick price MS are now paying almost double for this acquisition. I don't know if Aquantive is a better fit for them or if they have just decided to get in the ad game at all costs.

Re:

[CRC'99]

I don't know if Aquantive is a better fit for them or if they have just decided to get in the ad game at all costs.

Maybe these guys use Windows for all their servers. Google probably use some variant of open source, as do Doubleclick. MS can't acknowledge that a decent business can operate using FOSS so they can't buy a company that does well using open source as their SoE - that would discredit the whole FUD about FOSS.

Re:

[bberens]

MS can't acknowledge that a decent business can operate using FOSS so they can't buy a company that does well using open source as their SoE - that would discredit the whole FUD about FOSS.

So what you're saying is that it costs twice as much because they have to pay for all those MS licenses? Figures...

Microsoft Cult

[Foofoobar]

Oh there's a Microsoft-cult. It just consists of those stupid enough to invest in stock that has flatlined for the last 5 years and those silly enough to put all their development experience in one basket. You say anything about Microsoft that they don't like whether it's true or not and they instantly get panicky because you are either A) affecting their stock price or B) might actually be right and they would have to confront the fact that they are one trick ponies as developers (regardless of all the .NE

Re:

[fermion]

My reply to the google deal was the purchase of the unsavory doubleclick made google a much less trustworthy operation. Google was always not absolutely trustworthy as one is never sure if the data they store is going to come back to haunt a user. BHut at least they are providing a service at only indirect costs, and users often have a choice of thier service or others service as their is no lockin. My actualy response was to go through my cookie permission file and deny permission for most of the google

how innovative

[gEvil (beta)]

Ahh, I see they've decided to innovate some more to compete with Google...

research $

[rajafarian]

Ahh, I see they've decided to innovate some more to compete with Google...

Do you suppose that the research they did to determine to buy this company is counted in the billions and billions of money that they put into "research" every year?

Re:

[Breakfast Pants]

Yes, to compete with Google's Double Click innovation.

And google got DoubleClick for "just" 3.1B

[vivaoporto]

Just so you see that was a bargain for Google to acquire Doubleclick for that amount, and how much Microsoft was yearning for acquiring an advertising company, in order to better compete with Google on other fronts (instead of letting the real battle go to the "software as a service" front).

Re:

[mr_death]

And Eric Schmidt dope slaps Ballmer. Again.

You have to wonder how much longer The Chair Thrower is going to have a job ...

Loose Lips

[bill_mcgonigle]

You have to wonder how much longer The Chair Thrower is going to have a job ...

Shhh! Just let him keep buying little-known companies for $6B a pop. Heck, I've got one for him...

Re:

[mr_death]

Heck, I've got one for him...

Me, too. Although I'd charge him an extra $4B for his general obnoxiousness, sweaty dancing, and extreme blowhardedness.

crazy

[grub]

$1/per pair of eyeballs on the planet.

Re:

[eneville]

that is a very interesting perspective to look at this with. i was just sitting and reading the thread trying to think of someway to suggest that ms will use this to try and find ways to sell vista.. but your reply is much better than anything i could have thought of as it's probably true.

Re:

[iknownuttin]

According to this [ibiblio.org] site, it's actually $0.89 and decreasing per eyeball. So I guess as the population of the Earth increases, the deal looks better and better?

Re:crazy

[MMC Monster]

Heck. For $1 you could probably buy a pair of eye balls in certain parts of the world.

Re:

[ntsucks]

Actually that $5.45 for every Internet user on the planet (1.1 billion).

Re:

[MrMr]

Alternatively, you could say it casts an interesting light on the real value of 1$...

Lemmings....

[TechNit]

Well I wonder if Google sold it all and jumped off a cliff if M$ would blindly do the same?? What is up with this rampant battle to out do each other?? If Google started making washing machines would M$ follow suit??

You must be new here

[zappepcs]

MS has been copying or buying anyone else that is considered a leader in the marketplace since day one, if not before that. The only originality (if you can call it that) from MS has been their marketing strategy of forcing the world to buy their software when buying a pc. Had it not been for that kind of originality, MS would have been an also ran long ago... well, it could have happened that way. At this moment in time, Google and a few others have managed to carve out a spot in the marketplace before MS

Re:

[TechNit]

NO you are very much correct! It's the absurdity of it all that keeps me laughing at their self imposed need to step into any and all aspects of whatever the flavor of the month is instead of focusing more on their core business. MSN and Live.com are both lame but they still keep throwing money at them... Actually I will admit that maps.live.com has proven useful but only in IE....sigh

Re:I think it's pretty simple...

[symbolic]

Put rather succinctly...

Microsoft to Google: "My pee pee is bigger than your pee pee."

amazing

[radiomullet]

i wonder what they will do with the avenue a | razorfish media/tech company also included in aquantive's portfolio.

Now I understand what they were doing with your $

[zukinux]

Now I understand what they were doing with your $... that's why they take 150$ for office and windows.

What are Aquantive's domains?

[Animats]

What domains do Acquantive ads come from? I need to update certain tables. Thanks.

Re:What are Aquantive's domains?

[Fearless Freep]

Sorta suprised you would need to block an advertising firm just because MS bought them. Would think most ad firms would already be blocked as a matter of course

Re:

[CRC'99]

Exactly. Adblock Plus and Adblock Filterset G. The only blockers you'll ever need*.

* Products will not run in Microsoft browsers. Use FireFox - you know, the browser that doesn't suck and rape your system every time you visit a web page.

We just heard about them

[bill_mcgonigle]

Sorta suprised you would need to block an advertising firm just because MS bought them. Would think most ad firms would already be blocked as a matter of course

It's not that - nobody's every heard about these guys - that is until Microsoft ponied up <drevil>six billion dollars</drevil> for them.

Re:

[moore.dustin]

Now if Acquantive is bad now that MS owns it and DoubleClick is good because Google owns it, you need to seriously reexamine your thinking here.

Re:

[pembo13]

Good said anything about DoubleClick being good? Or are you one of the shills trolling here?

a bid to unseat flash?

[pohl]

This strikes me as an expensive (but possibly effective) way to ensure that silverlight-based adverts get shoved in our faces.

Re:

[aichpvee]

You know, this might even be a good thing. If it looks like silverlight is just being used for annoying ads maybe people will avoid it at first and it'll never take hold!

In related news, has Miguel de Icaza tried to buy a bankrupt ad agency for $6 yet?

Re:

[Ariastis]

Or up our a**es...

Re:

[owlnation]

This strikes me as an expensive (but possibly effective) way to ensure that silverlight-based adverts get shoved in our faces.

I pray every day to the highest Gods of the Internet that the most holy and blessed developers of Flashblock will also bestow unto us a Silverlight block, as soon as its impure code oozes onto the interwebs. (much as I actually do appreciate Flash getting much sorely needed competition).

Flashblock developers - friends of the Internet.

Re:

[Jaseoldboss]

Simply blocking Flash isn't enough, the ones you allow still store Flash cookies (.SOL files) on your system which can be used to track your browsing.

Sure you can visit the Settings Manager [macromedia.com] page but that's no good if you want to set a machine (or domain) wide policy. For that I use the following in a batch file in the All Users Startup folder:

RD "C:\Documents and Settings\%username%\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player" /S /Q

You can also stick it in the netlogon share and run it as your users' lo

Re:

[Nimey]

No. The way they'll do that is to create some "nifty" site (bait) which requires Silverlight, to convince the herd to download it...

No, wait. They own it, they own Windows Update; it'll get pushed out when it's ready.

*Then* some pinhead will start making "IE optimized" sites again.

Re:

[sootman]

You probably won't have to worry about that. (Unless maybe you use IE and MS builds it in.) The reason we have Flash ads is because there is tons and tons of good (yes, really) Flash content out there, so everyone has the plugin. If no developers use Silverlight to make neat content, no one will bother to get the plugin, and with no installed base, no advertiser will release ads in that format. Advertisers are lots of things but they aren't totally dumb--they'd rather go back to text or GIFs than use a form

In Other News . . .

[UnknowingFool]

As a gesture to welcome the new acquisition, Aquantive received a shipment of new office furniture at their soon to be headquarters in the Microsoft complex. A welcome note from CEO Steve Ballmer was attached to the shipment. Current Aquantive employees were happy about the gesture but questioned why there appeared to be disportionately more chairs than employees. The estimates were a 5 to 1 ratio. In a separate shipment, bolts, bars, and steel plates were also delivered to the offices. An attached, unsigned note read: "You're going to need these for the chairs. Good luck and Godspeed."

Colour me confused..

[ratboy666]

aQuantive has ~900 million in assets, and a current shareholder equity of ~600 million. Net revenue is the first quarter of this year was ~14 million.

Microsoft is aquiring them for 6 billion? Sounds about as dumb-ass as Google with DoubleClick (what, 31x premium?).

aQuantive stock is now 64.75 *up 27.88*. I missed it.

As a Microsoft shareholder, I don't like this. What a waste of money! I mean, paying 3 billion would be high, but 6 billion?

Re:Colour me confused..

[mcguyver]

Doubleclick was bought at 15x premium of revenue! Not profit. That's just amazing. Aquantive is going for 13x revenue. I wonder if these deals are going to work out or have the same stink of AOL-Time Warner.

Re:

[khallow]

Hmmm, this purchase is probably fueled by Microsoft stock. So the premium may be a strong indication of how overvalued Microsoft (and Aquantive) thinks its stock is.

Re:Colour me confused..

[Rolgar]

You're forgetting to use the synergistic multiplier to figure out the value added benefits of having turbo charged the money flux capacitor.

Re:

[RobertLTux]

but that only works if you have 1.21 jigga watts in the cap (and are driving at more than 87.99999 MPH)

Re:

[Ravnen]

I wonder if these deals are going to work out or have the same stink of AOL-Time Warner.

Well, I don't think you can really compare them. These deals are for cash not shares, are tiny relative to the overall businesses operated by Google and Microsoft, and in both cases the acquiring firms are large and very profitable.

The AOL takeover of Time Warner involved using ludicrously overpriced AOL shares to effectively buy Time Warner. The deal was only possible because of the .com bubble, and when the bubble b

Re:

[hansamurai]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AQNT&t=5d&l=on&z=m &q=l&c= [yahoo.com]

Not a bad jump.

Re:

[ralphdaugherty]

As a Microsoft shareholder, I don't like this. What a waste of money! I mean, paying 3 billion would be high, but 6 billion?

      When I saw that aQuantive and its 2800 employees are located in Seattle, I knew why Gates paid the huge premium for the company.

  rd

What hosts does this company use?

[pembo13]

I'd like to block them all.

yuck

[AchiestDragon]

now next thing you know they will be having those advert boxes just below the login box.
and special offer notifications popping up during your screensaver
not to mention linking with some telesails.
so whenever you login and start to surf you will get a call

dam will have to pattent that before m$ does , dam prior art in public domain above

what was that deal they where on about for discounted versions for schools that the users
would be compelled to watch advert streams before they could use it
looks like that m

Re:

[Achromatic1978]

now next thing you know they will be having those advert boxes just below the login box. and special offer notifications popping up during your screensaver

You're a complete dick. You do realize that MS/MSN has had an advertising arm for several years?

Makes you wonder why they didn't do this in Vista, then.

Oh I know why, because this would be fucking stupid, and everyone, including MS, knows that.

Except for the FUDbots.

In other news...

[Sloppy]

..Microsoft announces that SSL-by-default is their web browser's solution to phishing.

Privoxy changed the page's contents? Sorry, can't display it, or at least you get a popup every time ("A man in the middle has altered this page, potentially adding malicious code that I desperately want to execute with full admin rights. Do you want to abort the load?")

Don't Panic...(or maybe Do Panic)

[RotateLeftByte]

But I think this is a sign of Microsoft Panicing.

IMHO is that since Google bought Doubleclick(Yuk) they have been lookin at getting slice of the Online Advertising Market.
However (Dons invertment managers hat) to pay a premium of 68% over yesterday's close for each shae is just plain crazy.
Ok, I know that there are billions of dollars in cash sitting in the Bank of Microsoft but really...
If I were a Microsoft shareholder (and thankfully, I'm not) I would be looking for some detailed explanations as to why the paid so much over the odds for this business. Its not as if they were in a bidding war (or were they?)

68% is just too heavy a premium to pay.

This has all the signs of panic.

Balmer wants to buy up an Ad company before Google buys them all. but 68%, Really. this is really bad economics and seems like we have returned to the Dot.Com Bubble days.

Google must be laughing their socks off.

Re:

[Oswald]

Maybe they're panicked, maybe not. It does seem to me that if one wanted to ensure that one get a shot at every possible deal (in a sense, a veto on everybody else's deals, since Microsoft has so much cash to buy with), one might wish to signal a willingness to pay VERY hefty premiums for the right companies.

Re:

[RotateLeftByte]

Companies have a statutory duty to their shareholders to operate their business properly.
This especially includes their M&A activity.
Paying a premium of say 10% is usually as high as you can go before shareholders start asking awkward questions.
A premium of 68% is way beyond that level.
It is the sort of level that could get shareholders angry. If enough of them sufficiently angry they can force a company to hold an EGM.
It does not matter who the company is. One worth Billios or one worth a few Millions.

Re:

[Oswald]

First you ignore, rather than argue against, the possibility that the strategy I suggest might get good results and therefore be in the shareholders' interest. Then you proclaim that mismanagement on this scale might trigger a revolt. Then you bemoan the fact that Microsoft's shareholders are apparently asleep at the wheel, so this will probably not cause a revolt. In fact, you observe with regret, shareholders in general are largely moribund (except, you said earlier, for asking awkward questions if man

MiniMSFT was NOT impressed either

[toby]

Quoth Who da'Punk: [blogspot.com]

Holy crap.

In my opinion, this is a huge demonstration of fear, desperation, and dim-dog market tail-light chasing greed on our part. Every acquisition represents our failure to use our 70,000+ employee base to solve a solution or create a new market. Rather than buying back stock or pushing out a dividend, shareholder money got mis-invested in a hugely overpriced acquisition. And you're a shareholder why?

...and MSFTExtremeMakeover goes ballistic

[toby]

It's Official: Ballmer has lost it: [blogspot.com]

Is aQuantive everyone else's leftover and a poor choice? No, it's an excellent company. ... However, it was also a great company last year, the year before that, the year before that, and the year before that - when incidentally it was trading at a fraction of the current market price and already on the radar of investment forums including MSFT's own Moneycentral (not to mention being right under MS's nose in Seattle). But just like in '00/'01, when Ballmer could and s

Re:

[RotateLeftByte]

Just to be clear,

the 68% was the PREMIUM that Microsoft paid over the closing price of the share the previous day.

For example.
  Closing price = $100.00
  Microsoft Price = $100.00 + $68.00 = $168.00

  Microsoft has bought all the shares paying (IMHO) way over the odds for them. This (again IMHO) something the shareholders should be very suspicious about.

Ok?

Dot Com Boom 2.0

[rlp]

New exit strategy - sell to Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo.

Digital marketing firm?

[g0at]

They sell fingers?

-b

Is this wise?

[slapout]

Is this a good business decision on Microsoft's part? Or are they just trying to keep up with the Jones'?

Not like buying detergent

[Bullfish]

Probably the reason MS was pissed at Google buying doubleclick was that they were negotiating with these guys at the time. Buying a company for millions, billions in this case, isn't like buying detergent. This deal was probably in the works for months, if not a year or more. Google buying doubleclick may have driven MS to the price they paid out of competitive necessity. MS has lots of cash, the seller knows it... profit! Google also moving first gave them a kick in the pants in the stock market, MS is lik

Re:wRong nAme

[owlnation]

The capitalization of the company name should be "aQuantive" not "Aquantive."

And good luck to everyone in MS forced to try and type this in Word with intellisense switched on.